DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 2009/0249728) [hereinafter Teng] in view of Vermilion et al. (US 2015/0240495) [hereinafter Vermilion].
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9-11, Teng discloses roofing granules comprising a blend of porous, mineral-based granules and additional porous, mineral-based granules, wherein the additional granules have a bulk density in a range from 1.28 grams per cubic centimeter to 1.92 grams per cubic centimeter (claims 12-14; paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0023], [0039] and [0046]).
Teng fails to teach the granules having a hydrophobic polymeric coating.
Vermilion teaches that it is well known in the roofing art to coat granules with a hydrophobic polymeric coating comprising silane, silicone or siloxane (paragraph [0040]) in order to prohibit moisture from infiltrating between stacked shingles, increase shingle life by keeping the underside of the shingle dry on the roof and prevent water infiltration under the shingle, reduce leaks by preventing water from wicking under shingles, and reduce the wet time of shingles on the roof, which has been shown to directly correlate to reduced algae growth, thus reducing the need for algae resistant granules (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing granules in Teng to include a hydrophobic polymeric coating including silane, silicone or siloxane as suggested by Vermilion in order to prohibit moisture from infiltrating between stacked shingles, increase shingle life by keeping the underside of the shingle dry on the roof and prevent water infiltration under the shingle, reduce leaks by preventing water from wicking under shingles, and reduce the wet time of shingles on the roof, which has been shown to directly correlate to reduced algae growth, thus reducing the need for algae resistant granules.
Regarding claim 4, Teng discloses the porous, mineral based granules comprising at least one of expanded clay, expanded shale or expanded slate (claim 21).
Regarding claim 5, Teng teaches the porous, mineral-based granules comprising expanded shale (claim 21).
Regarding claim 8, Vermilion teaches at least some granules can be uncoated (Fig. 6; paragraph [0035]). Teng also suggests some or all of the granules may be coated (paragraph [0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to leave some granules in Teng uncoated by the hydrophobic polymer material as suggested by Vermilion in order to form a roofing shingle with the desired weathering properties.
Regarding claim 12, Vermilion teaches the silicon-containing polymer is on the additional granules in an amount from 0.05 % by weight to 5% by weight (paragraphs [0041-0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Teng discloses the porous, mineral-based granules having a density in a range from 0.48 grams per cubic centimeter to 0.96 grams per cubic centimeter (claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, Teng discloses a construction article comprising a substrate, an organic coating, and the roofing granules at least partially embedded in the organic coating (Fig. 2; claim 12; paragraphs [0010-0011] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Teng discloses the organic coating being an asphalt coating (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, Teng discloses the construction article is a shingle (claim 12).
Regarding claim 17, Teng teaches a shingle comprising a substrate, an organic coating, and roofing granules comprising a blend of porous, mineral based granules and additional granules at least partially embedded in the organic coating in a prime region of the shingle (paragraphs [0010-0011], [0023], [0027], [0039], [0045] and [0046]), wherein the additional granules have a bulk density in a range from 1.28 grams per cubic centimeter to 1.92 grams per cubic centimeter (paragraph [0039]).
Teng fails to teach the granules having a hydrophobic polymeric coating.
Vermilion teaches that it is well known in the roofing art to coat granules with a hydrophobic polymeric coating comprising silane, silicone or siloxane (paragraph [0040]) in order to prohibit moisture from infiltrating between stacked shingles, increase shingle life by keeping the underside of the shingle dry on the roof and prevent water infiltration under the shingle, reduce leaks by preventing water from wicking under shingles, and reduce the wet time of shingles on the roof, which has been shown to directly correlate to reduced algae growth, thus reducing the need for algae resistant granules (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing granules in Teng to include a hydrophobic polymeric coating including silane, silicone or siloxane as suggested by Vermilion in order to prohibit moisture from infiltrating between stacked shingles, increase shingle life by keeping the underside of the shingle dry on the roof and prevent water infiltration under the shingle, reduce leaks by preventing water from wicking under shingles, and reduce the wet time of shingles on the roof, which has been shown to directly correlate to reduced algae growth, thus reducing the need for algae resistant granules.
Regarding claim 18, the construction article is deemed to have a faster water desorption rate relative to a comparative construction article, wherein the comparative construction article comprises the additional granules, but not the porous, mineral based granules, since the construction article of Teng in view of Vermilion has a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed construction article.
Regarding claim 19, the construction article is deemed top have a reduced wet time relative to a comparative construction article, wherein the comparative construction article comprises the additional granules but not the porous, mineral based granules, since the construction article of Teng in view of Vermilion has a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed construction article.
Regarding claim 20, Teng in view of Vermilion discloses a method of reducing algae growth as a construction surface, the method comprising applying the construction article onto the construction surface (paragraph [0003]; claim 12).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng in view of Vermilion as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinault et al. (US 7,125,601) [hereinafter Pinault].
Teng teaches the claimed roofing granules as shown above, but fails to teach the roofing granules including a ceramic coating.
Pinault teaches that it is well known in the roofing art to have mineral-based granules coated with a ceramic coating for the purpose of providing desired aesthetic or anti-microbial properties (col. 6, lines 24-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing granules in Teng to include a ceramic coating as suggested by Pinault in order to provide aesthetic or anti-microbial properties if so desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the distinct feature of “the roofing granules comprising a mixture of 35 weight percent of the porous, mineral-based granules and 65% of the additional granules” as recited in new claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Teng teaches spatially segregated granule application to different shingle regions--prime granules applied to a prime region and headlap granules applied to a headlap region—not a single blended granule composition as claimed. Collapsing ‘different granules applied in different regions’ into the claimed ‘blend’ improperly reads the ‘blend’ limitation out of the claims”.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. Teng teaches a blend of porous, mineral based granules (low density granules) and additional granules (prime granules), wherein the additional granules have a bulk density in a range from 1.28 grams per cubic centimeter to 1.92 grams per cubic centimeter (paragraph [0039]). Teng teaches the coating can include filler which can comprise low density granules (paragraph [0023]) and further teaches light weight filler can be incorporated in the top coating of the shingle (paragraph [0046]). Thus, in addition to the prime granules, Teng teaches the coating can comprise a filler which includes mineral based granules. Thus, both types of granules are blended in the coating to coat the substrate of the shingle. Accordingly, Teng teaches a blended granule composition as claimed.
Additionally, Applicant argues that “Vermilion does not cure this deficiency. Even assuming Vermilion generally teaches hydrophobic treatments to inhibit moisture effects, the Office Action does not articulate-beyond the stated desired results-why a POSA would have reconfigured Teng’s region-specific granule system into a co-mingled granule blend product as required by claim 1”.
As shown above, Teng teaches the blended granule composition as claimed. Vermilion was merely cited to teach that it is well known in the roofing art to coat granules with a hydrophobic polymeric coating comprising silane, silicone or siloxane (paragraph [0040]) in order to prohibit moisture from infiltrating between stacked shingles, increase shingle life by keeping the underside of the shingle dry on the roof and prevent water infiltration under the shingle, reduce leaks by preventing water from wicking under shingles, and reduce the wet time of shingles on the roof, which has been shown to directly correlate to reduced algae growth, thus reducing the need for algae resistant granules (paragraph [0050]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing granules in Teng to include a hydrophobic polymeric coating including silane, silicone or siloxane as suggested by Vermilion in order to prohibit moisture from infiltrating between stacked shingles, increase shingle life by keeping the underside of the shingle dry on the roof and prevent water infiltration under the shingle, reduce leaks by preventing water from wicking under shingles, and reduce the wet time of shingles on the roof, which has been shown to directly correlate to reduced algae growth, thus reducing the need for algae resistant granules.
Furthermore, Applicant argues, with regard to claims 6 and 7, that Pinault et al. is relied upon to provide the desired aesthetic. However, Teng et al. already solves the problem of providing the desired aesthetic”.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. Teng does suggest the granules can be painted with a color. However, Pinault was merely cited to teach that it is well known in the roofing art to have mineral-based granules coated with a ceramic coating for the purpose of providing desired aesthetic or anti-microbial properties (col. 6, lines 24-31). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing granules in Teng to include a ceramic coating as suggested by Pinault in order to provide aesthetic or anti-microbial properties if so desired.
At least for the reasons given above, claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-20 are unpatentable over Teng in view of Vermilion, and claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable over Teng in view of Vermilion and Pinault.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781